Legal Opinion · Concurrence

City of Fort Smith v. France

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 29, 1971No. 5-5452Published

1ConcurrenceJohn A. Fogleman, Justice

I would affirm the decree, because I do not feel that appellant has met its burden on appeal.

In cases where location of a boundary line, with overtones of adverse possession, is involved, we have held that the question is determined upon a preponderance of the evidence and that we must affirm a chancellor’s decree unless his holding is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Kieffer v. Williams, 240 Ark. 514, 400 S. W. 2d 485. This is simply an application of the long-standing rule that this court will not, on appellate trial de novo, reverse a chancery court decree making findings…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Kieffer v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
  2. Smock v. CorpierSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1956
  3. Davis v. SpannSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  4. City of Little Rock v. Sunray DX Oil Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  5. Hunter v. DixonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API